|
/\\p{Script_Extensions=H_e_h}/u; |
And others: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Atc39%2Ftest262+%22%2F%5C%5C%5C%5Cp%22&type=code
Should be written as /\p{Script_Extensions=H_e_h}/u (with single /). Because /\\p{Script_Extensions=H_e_h}/ is interpreted as backslash \\ followed by p, repeated Script_Extensions=H_e_h times. Therefore, these tests are failing due to an invalid quantifier, not because of a non-existent property value.
It looks like this was missed in mathiasbynens/unicode-property-escapes-tests#9. Before this PR, there were calls like this:
assert.throws.early(SyntaxError, "/\\p{Script_Extensions=H_e_h}/u");
So, my assumption is that these tests were simply converted incorrectly to the new style.
test262/test/built-ins/RegExp/property-escapes/non-existent-property-value-Script_Extensions.js
Line 18 in 7a2273a
And others: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Atc39%2Ftest262+%22%2F%5C%5C%5C%5Cp%22&type=code
Should be written as
/\p{Script_Extensions=H_e_h}/u(with single/). Because/\\p{Script_Extensions=H_e_h}/is interpreted as backslash\\followed byp, repeatedScript_Extensions=H_e_htimes. Therefore, these tests are failing due to an invalid quantifier, not because of a non-existent property value.It looks like this was missed in mathiasbynens/unicode-property-escapes-tests#9. Before this PR, there were calls like this:
So, my assumption is that these tests were simply converted incorrectly to the new style.